EA All-in on Microtransactions

Well we saw what happened to Deadspace 3 with the micro transactions. Surprise apparently it was successful enough that every game from EA will them them now.

Remember there slogan "It's in the Game" apparently not. Thank you consumers from the bottom of my heart.

Electronic Arts during a Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference stating that the company is so pleased with its forays into the world of microtransactions, that they are bringing the support for these in-house, and that "all" their future games will feature microtransactions.

"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," said EA CFO Blake Jorgensen. "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

It's a depressing world if this is true and not just Business Speak. They will just become more and more pervasive with the popular "its just biz" excuse whenever someone criticizes it or suggests that its compromising creative design.

All I know is I'm kind of dreading what they have in store for the next Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age and Mass Effect games. Forced multiplayer, more DLC than actual game content (that day is coming) and so on.

"Dont like it, dont buy it" doesn't work if the industry can push itself to a large enough audience with marketing.

-- "If I've ever offended you, just know that from the bottom of my heart, I really don't give a shit."

No marketing will make me buy something I take as a fraud since the start.
No marketing made me to buy any DLC for DA2 rubbish nor I accepted their fraud model with ME3 DLC so called biowarepoints.

EA can search for cretins elsewhere. Meanwhile I'll happily toss hundreds on CDprojekt games and alike. Those things I can gift to ppl whithout making them feel moronic because there is some overexpensive DLC they should buy later.

I haven't been buying a single EA title for years… as I've been boycotting them… glad to see I have been doing the right thing… they just get worse and worse… now EA please just don't buy and destroy anymore of my favourite game developer studioes!!

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't think Dead Space 3 had much to do with this. I doubt microtransactions were very successful in that game. This has been in the works for some time.

Yes it has and that's what worries me. I have no problem with it in F2P games as its necessary. Now it looks like it's going to be in every game we play.

EA and others always push the boundary to see what is acceptable. They take in account the money made off sales and balance it with the outrage of consumers. It's a game to see what they can do and see if people support it or it backfires.

People have shown they welcome the new direction so here we are. The outrage of a segment doesn't bother the profit. It was the same with DLC. Now look were we are.

Alright long rant over.

-- "If I've ever offended you, just know that from the bottom of my heart, I really don't give a shit."

Its like, w/ DA i was forgiving, mainly because back then they had their PR bases covered, with what i felt were reasonable excuses. They still felt they had to defend DLC, and they did it well. Meanwhile, im an unrepentant DA fanboy, so i was willing to let them slide.

Now, they have no need to appease me with excuses - it's just the way it is from now on, take it or leave it! The honeymoon's over!

Thankfully, on one hand i have an impossible backlog of games. Secondly, theres enough creators out there NOT jumping on the dlc thing, that are probably as against it as everyone else. It just takes the entire industry in a really expensive direction

The debate whether they are actually "sacrificing content" is definitely up for debate, its one that's been flogged to death. I dont see what would stop someone from removing certain juicy things from a finished game, and charging for this now "extra" content.

It's true that expansions have been around forever, and that's essentially what dlc is, thats what theyll tell you. The difference being that expansions came at least a little while later after a game was released, it was additional content for people who liked the original game and wanted more. The day one dlc isnt that, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I think in ten years I'll still probably be fine with DLC and in-game transactions . It gives the consumer more options, which is always a good thing.

Were beating a dead horse here. We will never compromise on this topic. That's fine though. Different viewpoints on topics make it interesting.

Part of me wonders though.We encouraged this. Cost of developing game goes up, willingness of gamers to pay full retail price for game goes down. Logical conclusion is that businesses must go outside the "retail box gets you everything" business model to make their balance sheets add up.

Short-sighted buyers would apparently rather pay for a $50 box and $50 more in DLC over a year than pay less than $100 up front and get everything. Go figure.

I should ponder on this more.

-- "If I've ever offended you, just know that from the bottom of my heart, I really don't give a shit."

-- “ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

Considering how many games with potential are coming out in 2013 and 2014 both indie and smaller publishers I really don't give a crap what EA,Ubi, and Blizz are doing,they are not very likely to publish anything really good anyway.

-- "Mystery is important. To know everything, to know the whole truth, is dull. There is no magic in that. Magic is not knowing, magic is wondering about what and how and where." ~ Cortez, from The Longest Journey

This guy says it as it is. Consumers have always been supportive of these initiatives. Starting with embracing to be charged with online distribution only model (Steam), that relies on the Internet for a service that it is not needed.

As soon as consumers show a desire to be charged extra costs for unneeded services, it is hard to see how a seller could deny this to their consumers.
It is nearly beyond business at this point.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Cost of developing game goes up, willingness of gamers to pay full retail price for game goes down. Logical conclusion is that businesses must go outside the "retail box gets you everything" business model to make their balance sheets add up.
:

Maybe.Maybe not. Fact is that players induced extra costs for unneeded things in their games. Players have shown a willingness to pay to developp things that are unnecessary in video gaming.

If players want to fund the securing of software for SP games through services like Steam (that adds nothing to SP games) maybe they want to fund other unneeded to them features.

DArtagnan

People keep going on like this is true but it just ain't. At least not with any game I've played. The game is full and functional without buying any DLC at all.

If you wanted that to be accurate, you would take the expansion off to the side and dice it up into half a dozen tiny pictures and put $10 price tags on each. And maybe a few tiny dots with a $5 cost (an extra gun, an extra hair style, allow your character to burp…).

The only game I can think of that got close to requiring DLC was Dragon Age: Origins with the keep that had the chest you could use for storage. I bought that, put a bunch of stuff into it, and never came back. The design of the game really didn't require that item at all.